redis_get

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc. The description adds critical behavioral details: byte-windowing at REDIS_MAX_VALUE_BYTES, truncation indication, collection caps with limit defaults, and type-specific shape mentions. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is slightly verbose due to listing all types, but each part earns its place. Could be more concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers return shapes for all types, edge cases (truncation, defaults), and safety (read-only). Context signals show simple parameters, and the description handles the complexity well.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning to 'limit' (default REDIS_MAX_KEYS=1000, windowing) and explains how 'key' is used without extra detail. It enriches the schema's minimal descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reads a key's value and dispatches by type. It distinguishes from siblings like redis_scan (scan keys) and redis_key_info (key info) by specifying type-aware reading.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for reading any key's value without knowing the type, and notes it's always read-only. It does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to siblings, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.